Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday June 03, 2014 @10:34AM
from the comfortable-truths-aren't-the-ones-to-worry-about dept.

Lucas123 (935744) writes "Cody Wilson, the 26-year-old former law school student who published plans for printing 3D guns online, disputed claims by universities and government agencies that his thermoplastic gun design is unsafe. Wilson claims the agencies that tested the guns did not build them to spec. In a Q&A with Computerworld, he also addressed why he's continuing to press regulatory agencies to allow him to offer the plans again for upload after being ordered to take them down, saying it's less about the Second Amendment and more about the implications of open source and the digital age. "If you want to talk about rights, what does it mean to respect a civil liberty or civil right? Well, it means you understand there are social costs in having that right; that's why it deserves protection in the first place," he said. Wilson is also planning to release other gun-related project, though not necessarily a CAD design."

A first gen product using revolutionary technology and people are whining about it being unsafe? It's like complaining that the Model T didn't have airbags.

I think they are missing the point entirely. 3D printing will only become more sophisticated, using stronger materials and will be faster. People will be able to manufacture devices that are currently controlled or are so specialized that it hasn't occurred to the Feds to control them.

This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less momentous than VHS and later MP3s.

Which has nothing to do with using a 3-D printer to make a gun. No one is outlawing the use of a 3-D printer. However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns. Thanks for missing the point.

If the regulation of sales infringes upon the keeping and bearing, then it would be an infringement, wouldn't it?

For one supposedly so knowledgeable about this, why did you leave out the part about keeping? Kind of hard to keep or bear what you are not allowed to buy. The same argument has been used to heavily regulate the sale of ammunition but we all know that "bearing" a firearm is having the ability to use the firearm not just carry it around (the courts have even agreed) so not regulating ammunition is

Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, why is this the one Constitutionally protected right that you think only applies to groups and not individuals?

Is freedom of the press only for certified reporters working for incorporated news companies? Are only lawyers secure in their papers, because the rest of the citizenry doesn't have good reason to keep papers secret?

Your argument fails so many logic tests it is a surprise it keeps getting posted. But you

"There is no sane reason to believe the founding fathers intended everyone to be allowed carry a gun just for the heck of it."

Well, if you would actually bother to read what the founding fathers had to say about the matter, then, yes, there is a perfectly sane reason for believing exactly that.

And the definition of militia as given by the founding fathers is basically every able-bodied adult male. Modern society (women's rights and all) should expand that into every able-bodied adult. You most certainly are

Should DNA sequencers contain hashes of the DNA of virulent organisms so they can call the NSA/CIA/SAS/UN/boy scouts when they are being used for possible bioweapon related work? (Hopefully they don't rain hellfires on the CDC.)

Should CNC mills pop up 'It appears you are milling a rifle receiver...' whenever some pattern recognition software sees what it thinks is a rifle part.

These are both real world things, at least theoretically do-able today. I'd go with yes

DNA hashes on the organism level would be almost useless unless you were only guarding against casual creation of dangerous pathogens - change a few base pairs and the hash no longer matches, while making no substantial changes to the organism - there's far more variation than that just within the species (and species is a poorly-defined concept for virii and bacteria to begin with). At best you could match certain characteristic sub-sequence "fingerprints", but as we come to understand just how robust DNA

Nobody has any right to restrict how I use my printer, whether it's guns or even counterfeit money. You have to wait until I use either to commit a crime. Prior restraint is evil. Here's hoping the tech will make enforcement impossible. We should be controlling the authorities, not the other way around.

I would simplify it further. The problem is hypocrisy. Everybody wants freedom for things they enjoy and wants to restrict others' freedom for things they dislike. The irony of it is that those whose political leanings are more to the left... shall we say, claim to want freedom, egalitarianism and tolerance, yet are lightning quick to form lines to restrict anything that violates their sensibilities.

These days, everyone, left and right, wants to go crying to mommy when someone does something they don't like. Nobody wants to mind their own business and thinks they always know best.

A first gen product using revolutionary technology and people are whining about it being unsafe? It's like complaining that the Model T didn't have airbags.

In concept and engineering the Ford Model T was without a doubt a more mature and sophisticated invention, more practical and more trustworthy, than your 3D printed plastic gun.

Henry Ford said of the vehicle:

''I will build a car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one --- and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces.''

The Model T was (intentionally) almost as much a tractor and portable engine as it was an automobile. It has always been well regarded for its all-terrain abilities and ruggedness. It could travel a rocky, muddy farm lane, ford a shallow stream, climb a steep hill, and be parked on the other side to have one of its wheels removed and a pulley fastened to the hub for a flat belt to drive a bucksaw, thresher, silo blower, conveyor for filling corn cribs or haylofts, baler, water pump (for wells, mines, or swampy farm fields), electrical generator, and countless other applications. One unique application of the Model T was shown in the October 1922 issue of Fordson Farmer magazine. It showed a minister who had transformed his Model T into a mobile church, complete with small organ.

Standard Oil built its monopoly on the simple premise that when your wife touched a match to the wick of a kerosene lantern you should not be widowed in an explosion.

The Edison Labs invented the first commercially viable incandescent lamps that could be wired in parallel --- and went on to devise wiring standards, switches, fuse

logic fails you. It is already legal to make yourself a gun with traditional material by traditional means. Illegal gun manufacture not a relevant issue. Name one massacre (or murder in the past year, for that matter) done with a homemade gun. All gun killers, for all intents and purposes, use a factory made weapon.

Laser sintering, arguably a form of 3D printing, is used to make firearm components. Yes, likely used by hunters, soldiers, police officers or hobbyists.
Firearm assemblers source out all the components (with specifications). Some firearm manufacturers do advertise their components (high end custom weapons), others do not (everything not high end or custom). Same with cars.

What is the "big difference". Ease? That is not a big difference. ALL technology makes something "easier", that is the point of it. At some point, you either become a Luddite or you realize that you can't stop progress.

The 3d printed guns are crap. Not as bad as that new video shows, and that may very well be because they screwed it up intentionally to dissuade people from experimenting with them. However, they do work, at least for a few shots. Of course, it's too expensive, and takes too long. It's cheaper and faster to build a satuday night special if you've got a few tools, or buy one from the black market or a gun show. Of course, getting one legally is easy for most people, and again, cheaper than printing one, and

Nobody is going to be able to create a massacre with a printed gun, they just aren't up to the task for a variety of reasons. It's also pretty unlikely that anyone is going to be murdered with one either. An accidental death, sure, but intentionally snuffing someone, not any time soon.

Why not for intentionally snuffing someone? As a murder weapon, a plastic gun has a lot of benefits - you can simply melt the gun after the event and therefore eliminate a major source of forensic evidence.

What a ridiculous argument. Next you'll tell me that the reason gun nutz aren't all using BB guns to poke holes in targets is because they want to make bigger holes.Handguns are specifically designed to be used to kill people, that's why the bullets are the size they are and they contain as much powder in the shell as they do. Oh yes, they can also poke holes in paper targets, but that is NOT the primary intent of the designers and manufacturers of most hand guns.

Next you'll tell me that the reason gun nutz aren't all using BB guns to poke holes in targets is because they want to make bigger holes.

Well, yea. That's also why stuff like Tannerite has become so popular (Tannerite is a brand of low-impact explosive used for target shooting, in case you didn't know).

PS If you want to be taken seriously, please do refrain from using ad hominems such as "gun nutz" in the future, as opening your argument with pejoratives only serves to indicate a lack of both intellect and willingness to succumb to reason.

No, its because we want much more accuracy than a BB gun will give us and want to practice shooting at distances much farther than a BB gun will shoot its BB. Just in case you can't figure out why shooting 100-600 yds is different than shooting 20 feet, use your imagination and think about angles and trigonometry.

And the fact of the matter is that I don't even own a gun, nor do I particularly want one, but I fully support gun rights (so the logical fallacy is proven a fallacy in one simple case). I support gun rights because I support freedom, and freedom comes with some costs. In many of the countries with people with attitudes like this, they don't even have the right to free speech.

Disagree. The US got the first amendment right. And you got the second amendment wrong.

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.

Again, I would point to the US as the prime example of why the second amendment does absolutely nothing to help you secure any of your primary freedoms, since they are being violated ALL THE TIME by your government, but I don't see anyone successfully taking up arms against them.. and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.

All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.

You have the US and it's bill of rights because in 1776 the majority of people didn't want to pay their taxes to England anymore. The american revolution had nothing to do with the second amendment at all.

Now you're just being disingenuous... I never said that's what the revolution was about, I said owning firearms is part of the reason we have the U.S. and the bill of rights to begin with. IOW, we wouldn't have won without them. And the founders of this country, noting that that was the case, codified the right, not just own, but to bear arms, in the bill of rights.

Sure, but back in 1776 people with rifles and pistols could organize and defeat the government. What relevance does that have today? How does it counter what the GP said about guns being useless against the modern U.S. government?

Either you have to accept that the right to bear arms no longer serves its stated purpose (to defend the citizens from the government) or you have to argue that citizens should get F15s, tanks and maybe the odd nuke to maintain the balance.

Oddly, I have never heard a combat vet agreeing with that assessment. Never underestimate a lot of angry civilians with often homemade or virtually antique weapons. While it may (may, not certain) be possible to conquer such folks, it gets awfully expensive. Vietnam and Afghanistan are hardy examples. Saw examples of it in the Balkans. Hell, buddy of mine that spent time in Rwanda told me about mass combat with cheap PRC machetes.

It's nearly cliche to say "Weapons don't win wars, people do". But there is more than a bit of truth in it. If weapons solely determined wars, history would be a very different place. Hell, if that was the case, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine would not be stomping the ever lovin' hell out of the Ukrainian forces. That's actually a pretty good example of cheap, simple hand weapons taking down tanks and helicopter gunships.

The second amendment was written by people who had just violently expelled a tyrannical government. The only plausible explanation is that they intended for the "militia", meaning all able bodied males, to be able to violently expel the government they were creating when it turned tyrannical.

If "strong laws and a properly functioning government" are all it takes to prevent freedoms being trampled, there would be no governmental injustice in the world. Many nations with strong laws, a properly functioning government have fallen to corruption from within and changed to horrible places. This tends to continue until either the oppressors die without corrupt replacement, or are killed by rebels. It has happened so many times in history, even recent history, I have to wonder if you ever attended hist

All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.

That may very well be true but you have to step back and look at the entire picture. It doesn't even make the top 10 {15 if you look at the pdf} leading causes of death and is ranked below Influenza and Pneumonia things we rarely even think twice about.

People like guns because they happen to like guns. Some people like golf, basketball, big trucks, or a whole host of other stuff without worrying about their mainhood.

Just a lot of Americans happen to like guns - it's about 1 gun per person in the US. In many other countries, it's far lower - in Canada, it's about 1 gun per 3 people (there is approximately 1/30th the number of guns in Canada, despite being approximately 1/10th the population of the US).

Now that would depend rather seriously on your interpretation of the phrase, wouldn't it? In many cultures "being a pussy" is used as roughly synonymous with "being a pushover", aka someone who is unable or unwilling to defend themselves and/or their ideals, which absolutely *is* something many/most governments want of their populations. The use of misogynistic language may conflate the willingness to resort to violence for defense with masculinity, but that's a red herring.

Maybe someone else will post how to put it together, though if you can't figure it out you might want to stop. To make a legal gun (not an 'other gun') you should add a handle, trigger, mechanical hammer and safety.

Can the social costs outweigh the right or privilege? Do other countries where there is broad acceptance of restrictions on gun ownership, such as the UK, have any right 'not to hear' this free information?

Has any analysis been done as to the feasibility of the oppressed in obtaining suitable 3d printers and the 'correct' material for printing, then using these weapons to defeat their oppressor versus the ability of criminals to do likewise and use the weapons in the pursuit of their crimes?

What other countries do or do not do should not be the basis of American law. Constutional rights have one of three levels of protection. Might as well think of them as high, medium and low.

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review, so highly protected. Example: race-based classifications.
Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to have a very important interest in infringing upon said right, medium. Examples: free speech, equal protection
Rational basis review is the bare m

The impact to USA society of the ability to make a gun in the privacy of your own home is piddly compared to the impact this technology will have in several other societies.

Here is a newly articulated rule that is proven by several thousand years of history:

The Luddites never win.

Gun control is a product of Luddite thinking. There are other ways of dealing with the crazies who go on rampages, and the criminals who use guns in their crimes. Work out how to handle those bad behaviors r

We have many rights under the US constitution, but having the right and choosing when and how to exercise that right are two very different things. The constitution permits and protects a great many anti-social activities, yet I don't believe the founding fathers were attempting to promote anti-social behavior. They simply recognized that to fully protect beneficial behavior there was a need to make the safeguard as wide as possible.

It is a mistake to think the impact is restricted to the United States. Thi

We, as people, have many rights. The US Constitution recognizes several of them. We don't have them "under the Constitution", we have them regardless of the Constitution. The Constitutional Amendments simply say the government cannot violate or remove those rights we already have.

The alternative is that we, as people, have no rights whatsoever. Only permissions and privileges.

Well, of course you can look at it that way, but absent the constitution or another social contract you have only the state of nature - where life is nasty, brutish and short.

Certainly you could say we have many rights protected under the constitution, but really it's just semantics; the rights exist but to fully enjoy the benefits that flow therefrom might require discretion over which rights we exercise and when and how we do so.

> The constitution permits and protects a great many anti-social activities, yet I don't believe the founding fathers> were attempting to promote anti-social behavior. They simply recognized that to fully protect beneficial behavior> there was a need to make the safeguard as wide as possible.

But nobody needs the right to obey. The right to do as you are told has never been questioned or challenged. None have ever been threatened with loss of liberty for doing what his neighbor considered decent an

Indeed, because there is always the prospect of tyranny of the majority, so the right to organize, to protest, to campaign, to speak may always be under threat and should be protected. That doesn't make westboro baptist church any less objectionable just because they exercise their constitutional rights in their protests.

Seriously? For the most part, someone who is not a convicted felon or diagnosed as suffering from mental illness can buy a gun in a gun shop. The others can (illegally, but apparently with some ease) buy a gun at a gun fair. [thirdway.org]

This is not what the world needs - i.e. an easy way to make an unregulated *weapon* - i.e. an object designed to kill. This is not about open source, or anything else that Cody Wilson claims; it's about the *result* of his actions id these his designs are used to proliferate more *weapons*. America already experiences 33-35,000 gun deaths every year. America is FOURTH in gun deaths, worldwide - after Thailand, Colombia and Nigeria.Isn't that enough? Do we want to make guns even easier to obtain?

Good point... one that people often fail to grasp. I support decriminalization of all drugs... yes, ALL drugs, as the individual should have the right to do with their body what they want. The most common come-back I hear is "so then it's OK for them to kill you for money to support their habit?"

Uh... no, it's not OK. Only a moron could conclude that.

I support the decriminalization of prostitution. The most common come-back I hear is "so then it's OK for a pimp to essentially force a woman to sell her b

Guns are tools, used for entertainment, sport, self defense... as soon as someone uses one to violate your rights, you can go ahead and execute them, as far as I'm concerned. But get rid of the person that violated your rights... "things" don't violate your rights, only other people do.

Taken to the logical extreme, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument says any sort of gun control is illogical. Fully automatic AK-47s don't kill people, people kill people! Browning.50 caliber machine guns don't kill people, people kill people! Hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people! A plutonium implosion weapon doesn't kill people, people kill people! Ownership of a nuclear bomb doesn't violate people's rights, so we shouldn't restrict ownership of fissile material. Of course, if someone were to detonate a 20 kiloton weapon in a school and kill all the schoolchildren, and incinerate everyone for miles around, well should throw the book at them. But let's not get all crazy and talk about putting restrictions on enriched uranium. The fissile material, explosive lenses and triggers are just a tool, it's what people decide to do with it that matters, right?

The reason that argument sounds insane because it IS insane. Except for failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan, EVERY state accepts some limitations on the kinds of weapons that people can carry, the only difference is that some states apply more restrictions than others. The U.S. gun control laws are far more lax than in the UK, Australia, or Canada, but we have them- you can't just buy a machine gun. This always seems to get forgotten in discussions about gun control: gun control is already in existence, the only question is whether we need less, more, or to keep things the same. The US, UK, Australia and Canada all agree that some weapons are too dangerous to let people run around with, we just disagree about where to draw the line. Given that the US has an endless series of mass killings, and the other countries don't, it's not hard to see who made the right call.

Of course every state "accepts some limitations" on weapons -- armed people are a threat to tyrannical governments and states in general, and this fact is entirely a result of one's self-preservation, whether good or not. (And a tyrannical government is most certainly not good.)

We won the American Revolution because the general population was armed as well as or better than the British military. The Second Amendment isn't there for hunting, it exists explicitly to protect your right to shoot at the governme

Another invalid comparison... Your right to own a car is like the right to own a gun - it does NOT go away because other people have caused laws to be created punishing those who drive unsafely... and laws apply to people using weapons unsafely, but the right to own and use the gun remains. Please note, I know the knee-jerk reaction from liberals is hard to for them to temper, but he didn't say you can't limit it's use, he said the right doesn't go away.

It's virtually impossible to stop crime from happening; that's why the SCOTUS has affirmed that it's not the responsibility of police departments to prevent crime, but to to try to catch and punish those who commit them. Printing a 3D gun doesn't violate anyone else's rights, it's when someone uses that gun to violate the rights of others that they've committed a crime... and we don't need any new laws for our government to try to catch and prosecute those that do it.

blah blah blah... You're trying to stop the wind. He's entirely right. This is something that's coming like a freight train and there's no stopping it. I've built guns, from scratch, for years. It's not even remotely difficult. What he's made with his thousand dollar 3D printer you could make by spending $10 at home depot on some pipe fittings and nails. Want it undetectable so you can take it on a plane? Drill a hole in a piece of oak, use a piece of graphite or other semi-hard substance for the firing pin

It's legal to post 3D print files of firearms. That's fully legal and permitted under the First and Second Amendments.

It's illegal to export them internationally without State Department permission, due to The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Constitution grants the US government nearly unlimited control of the borders of the United States, and that include limits on goods going in or out of the country.

Source: I did export control in the aerospace industry. Plenty of 100% fully legal domestic stuff is illegal to send internationally without a permit. Fun example? L3 FLIR cameras made in Canada are illegal to transport back into Canada. Or notch a tailpipe to fit in a HMMWV, it becomes a defense article.

I have serious doubts as to whether a source file for printing a 3D weapon can be regulated. Forgetting the 2nd amendment issues I doubt it would stand up to 1st amendment scrutiny (source files are speech). Possession of the output (the gun) is already regulated under existing laws anyway, I'm not sure what the big deal is.

I still don't see the explanation on how a 3D printed plastic gun is worse than a plastic gun developed by other means. If you want to outlaw a type of gun, just do it. It is monumentally stupid to try to outlaw every manufacturing method that comes along, as it will always be a chase.

For instance. When does a 3d model of a gun become an illegal one? A basic outline? A general but unproven design? Or does it have to be a complete design proven to actually work, with all the detailed instructions for post

You're right, we shouldn't be panicking about the idea that people can print out guns. We should be panicking at the thought that people can easily buy precision-made, high quality and relatively inexpensive semiautomatic pistols and assault rifles. Makerbot isn't the problem, the problem is Glock and Colt.

You do realize that there are basically schematics for virtually every firearm in history available? Around here, we have people that make historic weapons using historic tools (ie essentially blacksmith shops). You could easily build highly lethal firearms with a load of charcoal, some decent wood and a pile of iron. It doesn't require that much skill either.

Before you say "So What?", this is still done every day in the Khyber Pass. Weapons are made using extremely primitive means. It's actually unnerv

Actually, you're not counting wars, which are gun deaths. Nor are you counting the millions who died after the right to arm themselves was taken away, by the government who's purpose was to protect those very lives, often by means of a bullet.

Name one dictator that allowed the citizens to keep and bear arms. Just one! Should be easy! The one thing they all have in common, is restricted guns to government agents. Germany, Russia/USSR, Cuba, China..... Millions of dead civilians.

No, I have a right to lobby my legislators to stop the irresponsible spread of killing weapons in America. Michael Bloomberg also has that right. Little-by-little, America is going to get better on this issue. Remember tobacco? Remember highly unsafe autos prior to Ralph Nader? Watch, and learn.

You are making a hasty generalization about "my side". In recent polling, 90% of Americans (including NRA members) said they wanted better background checks for gun licensing. the NRA fought that, and won. the NRA leadership is a terrorist leadership, completely insensitive to anything but the filthy lucre they take form their gun manufacturing overlords, used to bribe corrupt legislators.

I'm torn on this issue, and would need to look at the precise language of any bill and the ways in which it could be twisted or trivially extended in the future. I would like to see those with, for example, a history of violent mental illness denied the right to purchase firearms, but I can't think of many ways in which it could be done that could not be trivially perverted to also deny firearms to anyone likely to take up arms against an oppressive government, thus completely undermining the second amendm

Ah yes, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros have that right because they are rich but my friends and I don't have the right to pool our money for the same purpose, at least according to the ramblings of our Senate Majority leader.

I also haven't figured out how the Koch brothers shouldn't have the same right that Bloomberg and Soros do but that is probably because my values need some clarifying.

This is America; I have the right to vote and support change, including change to the Constitution. And, the so-called "right" to make 3D weapons is what we are discussing; THAT is NOT a settled right, and it never will be.

Crime continues to rise and you think America is getting better? Why not address the violence culture instead of their tools? Oh, that's right... It's because you feel it infringes on your rights to live in a culture who makes sport and entertainment of violence.

FBI Statistical data disagrees with you (FBI Violent Crime Table [goo.gl]). I realize the mainstream media has brainwashed a large number of people out there to believe the sky is falling on this issue, but it's really not.

Certainly they do - that's essential to a functioning, abaptable democracy. If they lobby long enough and hard enough then they can get an amendment proposed to repeal the second amendment, just as happened when the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) was repealed. Of course it'll need to be ratified by 38 state legislatures before it comes in to effect - that's your opportunity to stand strong and tell your legislature they're going to lose their jobs over this. And if you can't muster enough people to

You're right; and our prisons should release all the perpetrators convicted of victimless crimes (like prostitution and drug use), and fill it with people who violate the rights of others, including those who've endangered the lives of other innocent people because of misuse of their right to own a gun.

Look people, this is NOT a 2A issue, this is a 1A issue. When does censorship stop? Why can't gun plans be published?

What if after some future election it became illegal to publish plans for IUD contra-ceptives without a licence after some person posts plans for a 3D printed one. Then for a research physician to get published in a medical journal he'd need permission from the government. How about that? How is that different?

How would you feel about needing to obtain a goverenemt license to publish anything about crytographic code? Where would that stop? Could you teach your kids how to make a Ceasar cipher, or would you go to jail for that under a national security gag-order.

I've read several of your posts here, and wholeheartedly agree with them. As a libertarian I say it often: your rights should only end when used to violate the rights of others. Obviously printing a gun, in itself, does not threaten anyone else's rights.

Look people, this is NOT a 2A issue, this is a 1A issue. When does censorship stop? Why can't gun plans be published?

This may be a first amendment issue, or perhaps it is a second amendment issue, but that will be up to a court to decide. What you fail to understand is that like many Americans (I am American too, so I"m allowed to say that), you think that all rights are absolute but they are not. Even Justice Scalia, who is as conservative as they come on the Supreme Court, pointed out in a gun ruling that the Supreme Court wasn't saying that there couldn't be any restrictions on guns just because the second amendment

This is just someone who wants attention. Guns with plastic barrels are junk, worse even than low-end Saturday Night Specials. You can get a cheap gun for under $100 [gunbroker.com] in the US. (Yes, the Raven is a crappy gun, but it's still better than anything made on an extruder-type 3D printer.)

This is not the cutting edge of weapons design. Guns with aimbots. [tracking-point.com] are the cutting edge. Right now, they're expensive, around $10K, but they will get cheaper.

What you THINK Jefferson meant doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's quite clear from the entire quotation - in context, that he wasn't talking about guns.
http://www.monticello.org/site... [monticello.org]

I believe the confusion here is over the interpretation of "Let them take arms", which you seem to interpret as "let the government disarm people". Whereas, I, and I believe GP, thought "them" refered to the people, as in "let the people take arms". (notice "take arms" or "take up arms" is a common phrase for engaging in fighting)

That makes more sense to me in context... as he seems to be extolling the virtue of occasional civil war.